Shame on universities that legitimise sex work - excellent Times article from Libby Purves

[Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/shame-on-universities-that-legitimise-sex-work-5b6ngssb7 I'm afraid I don't have a share token. Quote below to give a flavour of it.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4400020-DIANE-ABBOTT-AND-SEX-WORK-ARTICLE-IN-THE-TIMES Related thread about reaction to Diane Abbott's criticism of Durham University offering online courses for student sex workers. She thinks it's abhorrent, she got a lot of abuse for it. I don't agree with Diane Abbott on everything by a long way, but I agree with her here.

Thread with link to petition to get the toolkit removed: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard/4344198-petition-to-revoke-student-sex-work-toolkit

Libby Purves doesn't pull her punches.

Final two paragraphs:

The online course does not mention the perfectly well-attested physical and psychological dangers of the sex trade, or link to organisations that get women free of it. The university authorities, meanwhile, take the conveniently narrow view that they are helping students who already do it. The wider view they fail to take is that they are making it feel like a reasonable choice. Nor do they consider how, when we already have an epidemic of sexual assaults on campus, it will affect their male students’ view of consent and loving relationships. It suggests that sexual predation is usual and natural, so buying pornography or real-time contact is an entitlement for any chap with the cash. Because women’s bodies are just a bit of fun, OK?

The course, and the universities’ threadbare “duty of care”, twist away from all this. Don’t judge, just tacitly accept that the financial and social structure of your academic profession makes it necessary for many bright girls to start their adult life whoring. And to think that in 1869, those pioneers naively believed university education would help prevent women having to sell sexual services to more powerful men.

[MargaritaPie]

I know who Brooke Magnanti "Belle De Jour" is but I don't recall mentioning her much. She may have had that column etc but her views on her own experiences as a sexworker are still worth as much as anyone else's IMO.

"is just a front shilling for male privilege and the idea that it’s fine for make humans to buy female humans for their use. It’s all about normalising male privilege and access to women’s and girls’ bodies, and you know it"

I'm more concerned with sexworkers not being murdered and having their health and safety taken into consideration (this includes preventing the spread of STDs for example). I know it's a very complex topic with much to discuss but I think health and safety should be at the top in terms of what's top priority

I'm just going to leave this link here: www.pion-norge.no/aktuelt/more-than-10-sex-workers-have-been-killed-in-6-months/

And re health, for example:

STOPAIDS is a network of UK agencies working together to secure an effective global response to HIV and AIDS (quote from their website regarding who they are). stopaids.org.uk/

Here is a factsheet by them regarding the health consequences of criminalisation (this includes partial criminalisation such as the Nordic Model) of sexwork:

stopaids.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/STOPAIDS-factsheet-sex-work.pdf

This is the sort of reasoning why you often find both local and international health/anti-STD or HIV orgs such as HIV Scotland, STOPAIDS as mentioned above, UNAIDS and the W.H.O. support complete decriminalisation of sexwork.

[napody]

Never has the comment 'you're not making the point you think you're making' been so apt.

[scegliere]

@MargaritaPie

A couple of Uni's offer help and support to their students who happen to be sex workers and the entire country loses its shit.

Evidence shows that when you legitimise sex work, demand for such services goes up massively, and so does exploitation. Countries that have legalised sex work and that regulate it have higher rates of sexual exploitation. The sex industry has managed to convince the media that the opposite is true (that legalising it makes it safer) and has successfully made this the dominant narrative in the media even though it is entirely untrue, to the detriment of vulnerable women.

[napody]

Instead she gives us a generalised index of sexual aggression which may have nothing to do with rape and what men said they might do to a woman if they thought they might get away with it. Which means nothing.

Wow. Means nothing? I agree that it would be good to have data specifically on rapes/paying for sex but I still think this tells us quite a lot. The simple study you suggest has major flaws. Men who pay for sex are likely not to understand the question 'have you ever raped a woman?' as to understand this question you would need to understand freely given, non coerced consent which by definition that group of men do not. Perhaps the index of sexual aggression is actually more informative. Asking (the tiny minority of) convicted rapists whether they have ever paid for sex would tell us something too...I wonder if there is data on that?

[FrancescaContini]

Thank you for linking to this. I know that the article will enrage/depress me so will read it later.

WTF kind of world are our young daughters coming into? 😞

[hhh333hhh]

@nightwakingmoon
Your arguments can only appeal to any traditional feminists if you agree with us that prostitution is a social evil.

Radical or Revolutionary Feminists are not 'traditional feminists'. If you look at the history of feminism you can see there were bitter arguments in the 1970s over these issues. At the Women's Liberation Movement Conferences a decisive rift emerged in 1977 with Sheila Jeffrey's paper, which took feminism in a different direction. The 1978 conference descended into chaos with women being shouted down and microphones wrenched from their hands. That was the final conference. Read what Oxford professor Amia Srinivasan has written in her book The Right to Sex.

I don't think anything that I say is going to appeal to Radical Feminists. Or the Evangelical Christians and Catholic nuns that they work with. People can be irrational on the subject of sex. And drugs too.

Basically the whole of your argument rests on a superficial idea that decriminalisation is better for “keeping women safe” — but you also want to argue that it’s all choice and safe and a job like anything else anyway. Well, it won’t take, I’m afraid.

Sex work is like other forms of work in that there are potential dangers. In most forms of work we let people keep themselves safe. We don't stop them and then insist that it must be a social evil. How am I contradicting myself? I haven't said that there are no harms in it, I have said that the harms can be avoided. Just like with other forms of work. And with drugs too.

any number of occupations many people find ethically dubious?

You might find sex work ethically dubious but I don't believe that most people in Britain today do. That's one reason you people find your audience with Evangelical Christians. You give a long list of supposed evils of sex work, including 'objectifies women as sexual commodities'. Are you aware that Martha Nussbaum, the philosopher who has developed the theory of objectification does not believe that either sex workers or their clients should be criminalised?

Are you aware that Catharine A MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin believed that every woman who has sex with a man in a patriarchal society is objectified? From that we get the idea that every woman should be a political lesbian. That doesn't necessarily mean that women should be having sex with each other but definitely means that women shouldn't be having sex with men.

So you object to sex work because it is objectification, and the Evangelicals object to it because it is fornication. Then you get together and try to ban it. Only there is no evidence that in Ireland north or south there has been a reduction in sin (sorry, I meant objectification) since the Nordic model was introduced there. Far from it.

I don't see how a form of work where we talk about harm reduction must be seen as harmful to people. Cab drivers can be robbed, raped or murdered. We don't try to stop people driving cabs, we try to stop them from being robbed, raped or murdered. If we wanted to stop cab driving we could probably do that, but there are some ways of earning money that the police are unable to stop. People are going to do it anyway. People are going to inject heroin anyway.

Few cab drivers are robbed, raped or murdered because there are all kinds of ways that they can avoid that, and we let them do it. All forms of driving are potentially lethal, including forklift trucks. We only need to talk about harm reduction for sex workers because society doesn't allow it. Women aren't allowed to work together for safety. Brothels which are well run where no one gets robbed, raped or murdered, are closed down (like the two run by Sandra Hankin) so that women work alone from flats.

[hhh333hhh]

@napody
Wow. Means nothing? I agree that it would be good to have data specifically on rapes/paying for sex but I still think this tells us quite a lot. The simple study you suggest has major flaws. Men who pay for sex are likely not to understand the question 'have you ever raped a woman?' as to understand this question you would need to understand freely given, non coerced consent which by definition that group of men do not. Perhaps the index of sexual aggression is actually more informative. Asking (the tiny minority of) convicted rapists whether they have ever paid for sex would tell us something too...I wonder if there is data on that?

The first question in the SES survey (Perpetration Version) is 'Have you engaged in sex play (fondling‚ kissing‚ or petting‚ but not intercourse) when she didn’t want to because you overwhelmed her with continual arguments and pressure?'

The eighth question is 'Have you engaged in sexual intercourse when she didn’t want to because you gave her alcohol or drugs?'

The ninth question is 'Have you engaged in sexual intercourse when she didn’t want to because you threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting her arm‚ holding her down‚ etc.) to make her?'

We are not told by Melissa Farley what the men answered to questions 8 an 9. That's the important thing. If we don't know that they we don't know what 'a mean of 1.59 types of sexually aggressive behavior' means.

A good survey should exclude outliers. There are some men who don't have sex. Obviously they won't be visiting sex workers and they won't be raping women. That can skew the results At the other end of the scale there will be men who are big drinkers who might be more likely to do both. That doesn't mean that sex work causes rape.

[hhh333hhh]

@scegliere
The amount of sex work has not increased in New Zealand since decriminalisation. I know that some people say it does, but that is incorrect. The amount of sex work in Northern Ireland seems to have increased since the Nordic Model.

[nightwakingmoon]

@hhh333hhh

@nightwakingmoon
Your arguments can only appeal to any traditional feminists if you agree with us that prostitution is a social evil.

Radical or Revolutionary Feminists are not 'traditional feminists'. If you look at the history of feminism you can see there were bitter arguments in the 1970s over these issues. At the Women's Liberation Movement Conferences a decisive rift emerged in 1977 with Sheila Jeffrey's paper, which took feminism in a different direction. The 1978 conference descended into chaos with women being shouted down and microphones wrenched from their hands. That was the final conference. Read what Oxford professor Amia Srinivasan has written in her book The Right to Sex.

I don't think anything that I say is going to appeal to Radical Feminists. Or the Evangelical Christians and Catholic nuns that they work with. People can be irrational on the subject of sex. And drugs too.

Basically the whole of your argument rests on a superficial idea that decriminalisation is better for “keeping women safe” — but you also want to argue that it’s all choice and safe and a job like anything else anyway. Well, it won’t take, I’m afraid.

Sex work is like other forms of work in that there are potential dangers. In most forms of work we let people keep themselves safe. We don't stop them and then insist that it must be a social evil. How am I contradicting myself? I haven't said that there are no harms in it, I have said that the harms can be avoided. Just like with other forms of work. And with drugs too.

any number of occupations many people find ethically dubious?

You might find sex work ethically dubious but I don't believe that most people in Britain today do. That's one reason you people find your audience with Evangelical Christians. You give a long list of supposed evils of sex work, including 'objectifies women as sexual commodities'. Are you aware that Martha Nussbaum, the philosopher who has developed the theory of objectification does not believe that either sex workers or their clients should be criminalised?

Are you aware that Catharine A MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin believed that every woman who has sex with a man in a patriarchal society is objectified? From that we get the idea that every woman should be a political lesbian. That doesn't necessarily mean that women should be having sex with each other but definitely means that women shouldn't be having sex with men.

So you object to sex work because it is objectification, and the Evangelicals object to it because it is fornication. Then you get together and try to ban it. Only there is no evidence that in Ireland north or south there has been a reduction in sin (sorry, I meant objectification) since the Nordic model was introduced there. Far from it.

I don't see how a form of work where we talk about harm reduction must be seen as harmful to people. Cab drivers can be robbed, raped or murdered. We don't try to stop people driving cabs, we try to stop them from being robbed, raped or murdered. If we wanted to stop cab driving we could probably do that, but there are some ways of earning money that the police are unable to stop. People are going to do it anyway. People are going to inject heroin anyway.

Few cab drivers are robbed, raped or murdered because there are all kinds of ways that they can avoid that, and we let them do it. All forms of driving are potentially lethal, including forklift trucks. We only need to talk about harm reduction for sex workers because society doesn't allow it. Women aren't allowed to work together for safety. Brothels which are well run where no one gets robbed, raped or murdered, are closed down (like the two run by Sandra Hankin) so that women work alone from flats.

I’m a historian of feminism, @hhh333hhh , so your post (which dramatically misrepresents most of the women you namecheck), is not very convincing to me. Amia Srinivasan is technically one of my colleagues and I think her book is remarkably weak (and massively overpromoted for its slightness of thought), so I’m afraid all your faux outrage about “Did you KNOW what the bad old feminists argued?!?!” doesn’t work. You clearly have not read any of the actual works of the women you quote, or you wouldn’t be also doing the “Evangelical Christians!!!” routine either. If one of my students came and spouted the secondhand misreadings about these writers that you’ve regurgitated here, they’d be sent back quick smart with a Third to do some actual reading for themselves.

My sincere advice is to actually go and READ - actually READ FOR YOURSELF- the works of Sheila Jeffreys, McKinnon, Dworkin, Nussbaum et al (and in fact read the Srinivasan too while you’re at it), before you try to write nonsense about them. Random old stuff you read about them on the internet or excerpts on Twitter doesn’t cut it as actual analysis, I’m afraid. Go and read the actual material, or you will never know just how wrong your points are. Then come back to me when you have read the texts, and then we can talk. 👍

[MargaritaPie]

@scegliere

Evidence shows that when you legitimise sex work, demand for such services goes up massively, and so does exploitation. Countries that have legalised sex work and that regulate it have higher rates of sexual exploitation. The sex industry has managed to convince the media that the opposite is true (that legalising it makes it safer) and has successfully made this the dominant narrative in the media even though it is entirely untrue, to the detriment of vulnerable women.

There is no evidence that criminalisation or partial criminalisation (eg the Nordic Model) reduces demand.

As mentioned many times- legalisation isn't the model advocated for by human rights, health, anti-STD, anti-trafficking and sex worker orgs. They are advocating for decriminalisation; the model used by NZ, parts of Australia and more recently (this year) Belgium.

www.brusselstimes.com/211351/historic-reform-belgium-first-in-europe-to-officially-decriminalise-sex-work

[MargaritaPie]

"The amount of sex work in Northern Ireland seems to have increased since the Nordic Model"

Violence and stigma have increased too. Source:

www.swarmcollective.org/blog/2019/9/20/nordic-model-in-northern-ireland-a-total-failure-no-decrease-in-sex-work-but-increases-in-violence-and-stigma

[hhh333hhh]

@nightwakingmoon
You seemed surprised when I brought up Evangelical Christians. Catharine A MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin went off to Indianapolis to join in the crusade of pastor William H Hudnut III against pornography.

Recent books by Julie Bindel and Kat Banyard quote 'Mr Wells' enthusiatically whithout revealing that this is Jim Wells the Evangelical Christian who has got into trouble with his views on abortion and gay rights. They like him because in the Northern Ireland Assembly he questioned Laura Lee the sex worker and campaigner.

Julie doesn't use his false statistic, I guess because she knows that it is false. He said that 127 prostitutes were murdered in the Netherlands in the same period that no prostitutes except for Petite Jasmine were murdered in Sweden (there has since been another one: Emilia Lundberg).

Laura researched this statistic and realised that most of those 127 were murdered before legalisation and not after. In fact it would seem there was a drop in the murder rate for sex workers in the Netherlands after legalisation there. She wrote a letter to the Belfast Telegraph explaining this. That couldn't stop the Nordic model getting adopted in Northern Ireland or Kat Banyard using his lie in her book or Rachel Moran using his lie when she went on Woman's Hour.

In a debate in parliament in 2018 the Evangelical ex-pastor MP Gavin Shuker stated incorrectly that women in prostitution don't get any the money, it all goes to pimps and traffickers. He also said that prostitution is dependent on advertising so if you stop that it will all go away. If a punter can find a prostitute then so can the police. Which is about as stupid as someone saying that if a drug addict can find a drug dealer then so can the police. Any young person can find a dealer but we all know the police can't. Even in America where they have an enormous prison population.

I don't expect they will tell you this in your feminist textbooks. I have read a few. I read Intercourse by Dworkin hoping to find some circumstances in which she feels women are not automatically objectified by having sex with men. Such as a man and a woman who think alike in the privacy of their own home. Didn't find any.

[MargaritaPie]

(Not so) fun fact- The Scottish Government only gives sexwork-related funding for orgs that agree with the Scottish Government's views on sexwork (that "it's violence end of conversation", basically). This means orgs made up of women (and some men) who sell sex such as Scot-Pep, Umbrella Lane, English Collective of Prostitutes etc receive zero Government funding because they advocate for complete decriminalisation and are of the view that it's a lot more complex topic than simply saying "it's violence".

[hhh333hhh]

As Daniela Danna writes in her work 'Prostitution and Public Life in Four European Capitals': "The premise is that of radical feminism that equates paying for a sexual act with rape - however, the law [in Sweden] did not adopt this extreme interpretation of prostitution and speaks more generically of violence. According to Andrea Dworkin, Sheila Jeffreys, and other representatives of radical feminism, any heterosexual sexual act is an act of oppression by men over women."